First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
The Universe, god can't have created it
55381 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 6/2/09 , edited 6/2/09

Droodika wrote:

You aren't a pixel in that picture either. In fact more people believe in a god than directly in you therefore by that thread of logic you barely exist whereas god is a widely confirmed phenomenon.

Only fools think science and god are at odds as most intelligent scientists agree that the workings of the universe are so complex that even the most brilliant human beings are only capable of a mean understanding rather than the perfection of understanding that some people think modern science represents.

As for your other points you present your own assertions beside random pseudo scientific facts without any kind of logical support Ex:

"we are on the 3rd planet closest to the sun
do you think that if god made this solar system, he would make 3rd planet first??
would it not make sense if he made the sun first"

Which is equivalent in logical reasoning to saying:

Brown bread is the #3 Grain Product sold in the USA!
Do you think that if god made brown bread it would be first because Brown is before the white bread in the alphabet?!
Would it not make sense if he made Eggo Waffles first?

And by this I mean that rambling on about one creation myth passed down in an oral tradition can hardly be proof of the existence or lack of a godlike being.

Or

"Now knowing how large and enormous one galaxy is
know that it has been calculated that there are over 500 BILLION GLAXIES in the universe
if there was a god, he would have long forgotten us, because we are so insignificant, that we have no impact on the continual changes and progess of the galaxy or our universe
We can never effect our galaxy or the universe, we mean nothing
We do not need to be created by someone, because that someone would have needed to be created"

Equates to:

When something is large and there are a large number of details,
nobody could possibly remember all of them, definitely not god or a computer.
We are tiny, we don't matter. Things beyond my simplistic understanding can not exist.

And yet:

Atoms are tiny, but they did quite a number on hiroshima/nagasaki. So clearly things that are small can effect things that are far larger.

Well done on your illogical rant about how god cant exist because you read a book about basic astronomy, but frankly if Albert Einstein himself believes in some incarnation of a god then I am loathe to take the assertions of some novice as fact.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)


I agree with some of your points however :

a) God is not a widely confirmed phenomenon, it is a widely believed phenomenon although this is only a point of grammar it changes your entire arguement from god may exist to god does exist, also if you 'slam' others for it you must be prepard for them to 'slam' you. Humans believe in god because humans need to know the why, who, where, what, when and how of everything its in our nature to not know is to not understand and to not understand is to fear for our species. In my opinion religion and science are of the same line, religion is simply a form of science as it still quests to explain everything.

b) Your rant was even more illogical especially the brown bread thing logically most animals, plant, etc do work in a set pattern of thinking so why should god be different? Logically you wouldn't start at the third page of a book now would you? Again why should god be any different. At this point i'd like to say to the guy who started this post that the bible never claims god created only the earth first it says the heavens and the earth the heavens could refer to everything else.

c) The fact that you ignore anything without evidence makes me hope you aren't a scientist because you shame Albert Einstein and all other scientists memory by doing so. You will forever be the dog chasing his own tail as long as you choose not to at least heed others theories, and learn from them. Many scientists formulated theories then found evidence to support them afterwards, you can't always have the evidence straight away you may need to develop new techniques or technologies to get your evidence. Scientist need to be open to new ideas and must believe everything is possible till it is proven otherwise and even then it may later be shown to be possible as technology and scientific methods advance. Take darwin his theory wasn't accepted till after he died others told him he was wrong his evidence wasn't sufficient or even relevant and now his theory is one of the most widely accepted in the world. In other words don't write it off till it's disproven.

d) I love the fact you verbally abash science then use it as a shield at the end, It's true science cannot explain everything straight away but thats why some many toil to understand more little by little so the knowledge of our species increases. I very much believe science can explain everything eventually because i have faith in people and ideas, not in mythical beings, that said i do believe there is some guiding hand in the world but as to whether it's like christianity's god, i am doubtful. I have seen, met and worked with many scientists all of which work very hard to prove as much as they can and this is happening all over the world there are numerous scientists all over the world, many of which you may owe your life to, and if people like that keep coming generation after generation then i believe they can find the truth of anything. If you can prove me wrong i'd be happy to accept your theory if you can prove it.

Feel free to 'slam' me if you see any problems with what i've said i'd be happy to converse some more.
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

Zol_Grimm wrote:

I agree with some of your points however :

a) God is not a widely confirmed phenomenon, it is a widely believed phenomenon although this is only a point of grammar it changes your entire arguement from god may exist to god does exist, also if you 'slam' others for it you must be prepard for them to 'slam' you. Humans believe in god because humans need to know the why, who, where, what, when and how of everything its in our nature to not know is to not understand and to not understand is to fear for our species. In my opinion religion and science are of the same line, religion is simply a form of science as it still quests to explain everything.

b) Your rant was even more illogical especially the brown bread thing logically most animals, plant, etc do work in a set pattern of thinking so why should god be different? Logically you wouldn't start at the third page of a book now would you? Again why should god be any different. At this point i'd like to say to the guy who started this post that the bible never claims god created only the earth first it says the heavens and the earth the heavens could refer to everything else.

c) The fact that you ignore anything without evidence makes me hope you aren't a scientist because you shame Albert Einstein and all other scientists memory by doing so. You will forever be the dog chasing his own tail as long as you choose not to at least heed others theories, and learn from them. Many scientists formulated theories then found evidence to support them afterwards, you can't always have the evidence straight away you may need to develop new techniques or technologies to get your evidence. Scientist need to be open to new ideas and must believe everything is possible till it is proven otherwise and even then it may later be shown to be possible as technology and scientific methods advance. Take darwin his theory wasn't accepted till after he died others told him he was wrong his evidence wasn't sufficient or even relevant and now his theory is one of the most widely accepted in the world. In other words don't write it off till it's disproven.

d) I love the fact you verbally abash science then use it as a shield at the end, It's true science cannot explain everything straight away but thats why some many toil to understand more little by little so the knowledge of our species increases. I very much believe science can explain everything eventually because i have faith in people and ideas, not in mythical beings, that said i do believe there is some guiding hand in the world but as to whether it's like christianity's god, i am doubtful. I have seen, met and worked with many scientists all of which work very hard to prove as much as they can and this is happening all over the world there are numerous scientists all over the world, many of which you may owe your life to, and if people like that keep coming generation after generation then i believe they can find the truth of anything. If you can prove me wrong i'd be happy to accept your theory if you can prove it.

Feel free to 'slam' me if you see any problems with what i've said i'd be happy to converse some more.


A) A Definition of the word confirm according to Princeton university: confirm - make more firm; "Confirm thy soul in self-control!"
By that definition a god is in fact a confirmed phenomenon. Something can be confirmed by some people without being an absolute truth.

B) The point of countering an illogical rant with an equally illogical rant is most often used to imply an absurdity in the initial argument, a clear version for those that are unable to comprehend subtext would be: The facts you are stating while they may be true have no correlation to each other; it as if the OP is stating that because of the fact that some peoples eyes are blue the sales for Nike are down, sure they are facts, and placed next to each other in a paragraph but serve no other purpose to support an argument.

C) When it comes to science you really can't "ignore" anything that exists as its existence is to some extent evidence. Stating that I shame someone who is dead, whom you never knew, because I don't share your views on the subject is laughable at best. What theory are you even talking about, the theory that there is no god? That having a grade school understanding of astrophysics some how gives you an insight beyond that of mere men? Taking a moment to think on if the author of a particular article is communicating literally or in a mocking tone of sarcasm is always a wise idea, you will find that if you ever study more complex examples of philosophy that you will encounter this often.

D) In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself and hence it expresses a property of the universe.

In short the Heisenberg principal is also a good way of explaining human limitation from a philosophical standpoint. Given our physical form and inherent limitations there are simply things that are impossible to know regardless of other factors. And a nice thing is that it isn't "my" theory either.

You get NOTHING, you LOSE, good DAY, Sir!
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs if you prefer.

6900 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Örebro, Sweden.
Offline
Posted 6/3/09 , edited 6/3/09

Zol_Grimm wrote:


Toby- wrote:

You know we had this incredibly intresting lesson a few days back. My teacher was talking about the scientific chance of materia being created from nothing, the chance was so small that in reality, it's impossible. Thus, the chance of big bang being something possible, is impossible. I usually just tell myself that God is beyond my understanding. He is something so far superior that I'll never be able to comprehend the mere fact.

This is one out of many reasons why I am a Christian, I believe that God created the universe because he is the only one capable of doing something impossible. Sometimes we just got to stop thinking about it, and stop arguing what created us.


I must thank you first and foremost i was wondering if a closed minded type person would appear in this conversation, let me ask you this if the big bang is impossible due to statistics why is god possible? It is also highly statistically unlikely that god exists yet you believe in that ideal, you're arguement turns round and bites it's own behind almost straight away. Here's another statistic, due to the enormity of the universe and the randomness of genetic recombination to ever create your exact genetic code is statistically as unlikely as the big bang theory, if not more so, so why do you exist? because god did it? but wait, he's also statistically as unlikely, hence using your theory, he is impossible too, hence you don't exist.

Your theory proves the lack of anythings existence and proves almost everything to be wrong without evidence. Just because something is statistically unlikely doesn't mean it's wrong, hypothetically, lets say you are sitting in your room and your mum is murdered down stairs yet you hear nothing, the perpetrator leaves no evidence of another presence in the house and you were alone in the house with your mother at the time. Your dad comes home and finds your mother dead and calls the police, who arrest you under suspicion of being the guilty party as your fingerprints are all over the house and you were the most likely to have commited the murder as you and your mother did not get along, if we used your theory since you were statistically more likely to be the culprit you are guilty and the cops do not search for any other evidence or suspects. Is that a fair judgement? The answer is you were innocent but if your theory was accepted universally you'd be seen as guilty as that would be the logical way to think.

Statistics can't show what will happen or did happen in history, it can guess but nothing more. Science isn't much better but we do have some degree of evidence and we work to figure out more and more every day.

Also if you can't comprehend god or anything he does how can you say there is a god or even know of him?

Your theory isn't wrong it's grammatically retarded simply because its statistically unlikely doesn't disprove it, the word you were looking for was not impossible it was improbable. Also if god can do something it's not impossible, now is it? Else he couldn't do it either.

I'm sorry to say this but your final sentence is to deny even what the bible says, the bible says we ate the fruit of knowledge and started to delve into the who, what, where, why and how of everything. It is human nature to ask questions, and i ask you but one favour, read the book 1984 by george orwell, then tell me that questions are bad.

I look forward to your retort.


Hmm. I really don't argue with people like you anymore, as there are plenty of people that could do it better than I (like the person above). But all I can say is that I don't need any proof that there's a God. You believe that big bang occurred, there are theories regarding this matter, and it's understandable that a intellectual person like you choose to believe in science. However I don't, I believe in something else and I think that you should stop being a stubborn kid nonetheless trying to prove every Christian wrong. You should also stop bashing me for grammar etc, English is not my mother language, not to mention my age.

Basically God has always been there, now that's something we can't really understand as we believe that there's a beginning to everything. However, is there really?

Most likely wont reply if you reply to my message, there are way to many arguements like this one and they never seem to end.
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

Toby- wrote:



Hmm. I really don't argue with people like you anymore, as there are plenty of people that could do it better than I (like the person above). But all I can say is that I don't need any proof that there's a God. You believe that big bang occurred, there are theories regarding this matter, and it's understandable that a intellectual person like you choose to believe in science. However I don't, I believe in something else and I think that you should stop being a stubborn kid nonetheless trying to prove every Christian wrong. You should also stop bashing me for grammar etc, English is not my mother language, not to mention my age.

Basically God has always been there, now that's something we can't really understand as we believe that there's a beginning to everything. However, is there really?

Most likely wont reply if you reply to my message, there are way to many arguements like this one and they never seem to end.


Yea, bashing Christians has essentially become a hobby for some people. It is a tired and small minded argument that attempts to pit religions vs. science, when for the broader minded person the two schools of thought are hardly related at all.

A greater portion of the problem likely stems from peoples inability to understand that the bible is not in fact a literal document and that it is rather a series of parables intended to teach life lessons more so than it is a true to fact historical document. Certain aspects of the bible however are validated by other works of the era such as the correlation between The Noah Flood Story and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Trying to understand the historical context in which the various books are written also goes a long way towards understanding the meanings of otherwise confusing verses.

In short, mocking the Christian religious tradition, when someone makes it painfully obvious that they are not studied on the topic borders more on blind prejudice than it resembles debate.

Don't worry about it Toby, ignorance always abounds on the internet.

2799 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09
So you're relating God to a person. Even if a person was able to create things out of nothing, like say, this universe, he wouldn't be able to control it of course. But God created EVERYTHING. He has time for each and every person living on our planets, and whatever life is out there.
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

CorynARC wrote:

So you're relating God to a person. Even if a person was able to create things out of nothing, like say, this universe, he wouldn't be able to control it of course. But God created EVERYTHING. He has time for each and every person living on our planets, and whatever life is out there.



Who are you even directing your comment at? If your talking to me I never relate God to a person and am actually supporting the possibility of God.

Parroting something you learned in Sunday school without thought though makes us all look bad, I am of a Christian upbringing and respect the traditions passed down by my ancestors, but at the same time I think of myself as more of a secular humanist and try to represent the unbiased middle ground.

Really if you aren't able to follow the entire debate then try to refrain from jumping to conclusions.
2799 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09 , edited 6/3/09

Droodika wrote:


CorynARC wrote:

So you're relating God to a person. Even if a person was able to create things out of nothing, like say, this universe, he wouldn't be able to control it of course. But God created EVERYTHING. He has time for each and every person living on our planets, and whatever life is out there.



Who are you even directing your comment at? If your talking to me I never relate God to a person and am actually supporting the possibility of God.

Parroting something you learned in Sunday school without thought though makes us all look bad, I am of a Christian upbringing and respect the traditions passed down by my ancestors, but at the same time I think of myself as more of a secular humanist and try to represent the unbiased middle ground.

Really if you aren't able to follow the entire debate then try to refrain from jumping to conclusions.


l'm sorry ><
and as for your first question, l was directing it to the thread starter
Don't hurt me ><
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

CorynARC wrote:


Droodika wrote:


CorynARC wrote:

So you're relating God to a person. Even if a person was able to create things out of nothing, like say, this universe, he wouldn't be able to control it of course. But God created EVERYTHING. He has time for each and every person living on our planets, and whatever life is out there.



Who are you even directing your comment at? If your talking to me I never relate God to a person and am actually supporting the possibility of God.

Parroting something you learned in Sunday school without thought though makes us all look bad, I am of a Christian upbringing and respect the traditions passed down by my ancestors, but at the same time I think of myself as more of a secular humanist and try to represent the unbiased middle ground.

Really if you aren't able to follow the entire debate then try to refrain from jumping to conclusions.


l'm sorry ><
and as for your first question, l was directing it to the thread starter
Don't hurt me ><


Haha, looks like *I* should refrain from jumping to conclusions then XD
2799 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09


Thank you
55381 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 6/3/09 , edited 6/3/09

Droodika wrote:


Zol_Grimm wrote:

I agree with some of your points however :

a) God is not a widely confirmed phenomenon, it is a widely believed phenomenon although this is only a point of grammar it changes your entire arguement from god may exist to god does exist, also if you 'slam' others for it you must be prepard for them to 'slam' you. Humans believe in god because humans need to know the why, who, where, what, when and how of everything its in our nature to not know is to not understand and to not understand is to fear for our species. In my opinion religion and science are of the same line, religion is simply a form of science as it still quests to explain everything.

b) Your rant was even more illogical especially the brown bread thing logically most animals, plant, etc do work in a set pattern of thinking so why should god be different? Logically you wouldn't start at the third page of a book now would you? Again why should god be any different. At this point i'd like to say to the guy who started this post that the bible never claims god created only the earth first it says the heavens and the earth the heavens could refer to everything else.

c) The fact that you ignore anything without evidence makes me hope you aren't a scientist because you shame Albert Einstein and all other scientists memory by doing so. You will forever be the dog chasing his own tail as long as you choose not to at least heed others theories, and learn from them. Many scientists formulated theories then found evidence to support them afterwards, you can't always have the evidence straight away you may need to develop new techniques or technologies to get your evidence. Scientist need to be open to new ideas and must believe everything is possible till it is proven otherwise and even then it may later be shown to be possible as technology and scientific methods advance. Take darwin his theory wasn't accepted till after he died others told him he was wrong his evidence wasn't sufficient or even relevant and now his theory is one of the most widely accepted in the world. In other words don't write it off till it's disproven.

d) I love the fact you verbally abash science then use it as a shield at the end, It's true science cannot explain everything straight away but thats why some many toil to understand more little by little so the knowledge of our species increases. I very much believe science can explain everything eventually because i have faith in people and ideas, not in mythical beings, that said i do believe there is some guiding hand in the world but as to whether it's like christianity's god, i am doubtful. I have seen, met and worked with many scientists all of which work very hard to prove as much as they can and this is happening all over the world there are numerous scientists all over the world, many of which you may owe your life to, and if people like that keep coming generation after generation then i believe they can find the truth of anything. If you can prove me wrong i'd be happy to accept your theory if you can prove it.

Feel free to 'slam' me if you see any problems with what i've said i'd be happy to converse some more.


A) A Definition of the word confirm according to Princeton university: confirm - make more firm; "Confirm thy soul in self-control!"
By that definition a god is in fact a confirmed phenomenon. Something can be confirmed by some people without being an absolute truth.

B) The point of countering an illogical rant with an equally illogical rant is most often used to imply an absurdity in the initial argument, a clear version for those that are unable to comprehend subtext would be: The facts you are stating while they may be true have no correlation to each other; it as if the OP is stating that because of the fact that some peoples eyes are blue the sales for Nike are down, sure they are facts, and placed next to each other in a paragraph but serve no other purpose to support an argument.

C) When it comes to science you really can't "ignore" anything that exists as its existence is to some extent evidence. Stating that I shame someone who is dead, whom you never knew, because I don't share your views on the subject is laughable at best. What theory are you even talking about, the theory that there is no god? That having a grade school understanding of astrophysics some how gives you an insight beyond that of mere men? Taking a moment to think on if the author of a particular article is communicating literally or in a mocking tone of sarcasm is always a wise idea, you will find that if you ever study more complex examples of philosophy that you will encounter this often.

D) In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself and hence it expresses a property of the universe.

In short the Heisenberg principal is also a good way of explaining human limitation from a philosophical standpoint. Given our physical form and inherent limitations there are simply things that are impossible to know regardless of other factors. And a nice thing is that it isn't "my" theory either.

You get NOTHING, you LOSE, good DAY, Sir!
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs if you prefer.



Ok i concede my first point, and the second one, we seem to be in agreement about, however my third point you simply argue what i originally argued then attempt to insult me, i am simply stating that a scientist should never rule out anything til it can be proven with evidence, hence i neither disbelieve in god nor believe in him as it can be proven neither way that is all i was stating and that if you are a scientist you wont go far because not everything can be proven immediately e.g. Theory of evolution, which darwin worked very hard on and died before it's mass acceptance. I never pertain either way that you or the author of this post is right simply that discrediting one because it has no evidence is ironic as there is no evidence of god either. The point about it shaming previous scientists was simply to highlight my point about you being a poor scientist, if you can even be called that....

As for your response to my fourth point your the laughable one that text is word for word from wikipedia, you simply rearranged the sentences, and for reference the Heisenberg uncertainty principle refers mainly to particle physics (next time YOU should read more carefully) and i quote : "In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that CERTAIN PAIRS of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision." This principal only refers to one aspect and simply because that is the case now does not mean it will be the case in the future or that it refers to anything outside its original intent until it is proven otherwise. 200 years ago the idea of moving pictures, or open heart surgery was impossible, as was many other things we now perform every day thanks to science. Sorry my friend but yours is the narrow view of an uneducated person not mine and If science is such a farce to you, i invite you to relinquish everything it has given you, but that would leave you naked, bored, hungry and stupid. XD

You feign a higher understanding of science but you really only know a little and back it up with wikipedia...lol

Your last line shows how much you are up your own butt as i invited you to discuss it with me yet you retort like you are far more knowledgable than anyone here and sadly you prove yourself to be sufficient in naught but philosophy which while admirable you still lack the humility, openmindedness and calm of any great philiosopher. A true philisopher would have debated with me not said his points and shut me off accepting victory before counter arguements.

On a side note my message to the other religious dude, was not me abashing christianity it was simply me questioning it....and thanks to both your retorts, you prove my point, religion takes itself to seriously. I believe science can answer many if not all questions eventually but i still question it and can take the blows religion and other such things throw at it with humility and understanding, in fact when you prove us wrong it just makes me want to work harder to find the answer. Yet when anyone asks a question you can't answer or causes a blow to religion you all get uppity and go on a full offensive, while i agree with defending what you believe in attacking is not always the best method. What is religion so afraid of? That we'll prove you wrong? So far i believe we have proven you right.... Like i said about the story of moses, so perhaps he didn't part the red sea is it any less of a miracle if the plagues occured at that precise time and a tidal wave caused by one of the contributing factors saved them? I think not, plus the complexity of the universe and they way it develops really does suggest some guiding hand out there, but it hasn't been proven yet. I would also like to say the american states and other locations that do not teach the theory of evolution are another point of proof, in the U.K. we are taught both and left to make our own choices giving nothing but religious spiel just shows that religion is afraid science will prove it wrong. Furthermore as i have also said before religion is essentially a form of science, mankind fears what he does not understand, we feared rain, the rising and setting of the sun, thunder and lightning but religion quelled these fears by explaining them (god did it) or in some cases through sacrifices to appease gods etc(not christianity obviously). Finally just throwing it out there but religion is the number one cause of war as well, the crusades, and lest we forget witch hunts the mass killing of women with medical knowledge and all caused by the people of salem aparently eating wheat tainted with ergot(look it up on wiki drood) which caused them to hallucinate. I do also accept that religion has done many great things for society too but do the means justify the cause?.

Finally, i hate to tell this to you but it's generally religion that feels the need to pit itself against science, e.g. read Darwins story, Newtons story, and they are still at it today. Religion and science are brothers in my opinion 2 parallel types of explaining the universe, not enemies as war mongers such as yourself(as implied by your first post) like to imply.
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09 , edited 6/3/09

Zol_Grimm wrote:
Ok i concede my first point, and the second one, we seem to be in agreement about, however my third point you simply argue what i originally argued then attempt to insult me, i am simply stating that a scientist should never rule out anything til it can be proven with evidence, hence i neither disbelieve in god nor believe in him as it can be proven neither way that is all i was stating and that if you are a scientist you wont go far because not everything can be proven immediately e.g. Theory of evolution, which darwin worked very hard on and died before it's mass acceptance. I never pertain either way that you or the author of this post is right simply that discrediting one because it has no evidence is ironic as there is no evidence of god either. The point about it shaming previous scientists was simply to highlight my point about you being a poor scientist, if you can even be called that....

As for your response to my fourth point your the laughable one that text is word for word from wikipedia, you simply rearranged the sentences, and for reference the Heisenberg uncertainty principle refers mainly to particle physics (next time YOU should read more carefully) and i quote : "In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that CERTAIN PAIRS of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision." This principal only refers to one aspect and simply because that is the case now does not mean it will be the case in the future or that it refers to anything outside its original intent until it is proven otherwise. 200 years ago the idea of moving pictures, or open heart surgery was impossible, as was many other things we now perform every day thanks to science. Sorry my friend but yours is the narrow view of an uneducated person not mine and If science is such a farce to you, i invite you to relinquish everything it has given you, but that would leave you naked, bored, hungry and stupid. XD

You feign a higher understanding of science but you really only know a little and back it up with wikipedia...lol

Your last line shows how much you are up your own butt as i invited you to discuss it with me yet you retort like you are far more knowledgable than anyone here and sadly you prove yourself to be sufficient in naught but philosophy which while admirable you still lack the humility, openmindedness and calm of any great philiosopher. A true philisopher would have debated with me not said his points and shut me off accepting victory before counter arguements.

On a side note my message to the other religious dude, was not me abashing christianity it was simply me questioning it....and thanks to both your retorts, you prove my point, religion takes itself to seriously. I believe science can answer many if not all questions eventually but i still question it and can take the blows religion and other such things throw at it with humility and understanding, in fact when you prove us wrong it just makes me want to work harder to find the answer. Yet when anyone asks a question you can't answer or causes a blow to religion you all get uppity and go on a full offensive, while i agree with defending what you believe in attacking is not always the best method. What is religion so afraid of? That we'll prove you wrong? So far i believe we have proven you right.... Like i said about the story of moses, so perhaps he didn't part the red sea is it any less of a miracle if the plagues occured at that precise time and a tidal wave caused by one of the contributing factors saved them? I think not, plus the complexity of the universe and they way it develops really does suggest some guiding hand out there, but it hasn't been proven yet. I would also like to say the american states and other locations that do not teach the theory of evolution are another point of proof, in the U.K. we are taught both and left to make our own choices giving nothing but religious spiel just shows that religion is afraid science will prove it wrong. Furthermore as i have also said before religion is essentially a form of science, mankind fears what he does not understand, we feared rain, the rising and setting of the sun, thunder and lightning but religion quelled these fears by explaining them (god did it) or in some cases through sacrifices to appease gods etc(not christianity obviously). Finally just throwing it out there but religion is the number one cause of war as well, the crusades, and lest we forget witch hunts the mass killing of women with medical knowledge and all caused by the people of salem aparently eating wheat tainted with ergot(look it up on wiki drood) which caused them to hallucinate. I do also accept that religion has done many great things for society too but do the means justify the cause?.

Finally, i hate to tell this to you but it's generally religion that feels the need to pit itself against science, e.g. read Darwins story, Newtons story, and they are still at it today. Religion and science are brothers in my opinion 2 parallel types of explaining the universe, not enemies as war mongers such as yourself(as implied by your first post) like to imply.


I grow tired of arguing with you. You deride me for taking a minor passing personal shot at you, and then you proceed to make your entire post a personal attack.

Your response is riddled with grammatical errors, run on sentences and you seem to lack an understanding of when to form a new paragraph. Also using an ellipse sometimes makes sense but not when you use them what four times in one article... really?

Going off on a tangent about the evils of religion when that is not even the topic at hand after saying that I am not levelheaded or open minded is humorous though, I quite enjoyed this.

I could find another explanation of the Heisenberg principal for you from a university website if you like but wikipedia suffices and is only a target of ridicule for someone who has no actual valid arguments left. If you fail to see the point I was trying to make then I fear there is little I can do to help you.

Understanding that the bible is a series of stories intended to teach life lessons rather than a literal document, seems to be beyond the scope of your understanding. The stories of many cultures are like this, not exclusively the Judeo Cristian traditions. As for your rant on the American education system, I am not American I do not know of their practices and bringing them up is neither here nor there.

You make the assertion that Religion is the number one cause of war, how do you back this with facts? Do you back it with a generalized theory at least? No you seem to only cite a handful of examples of events that on the surface seem to be about religion but in reality have a root in naked avarice. I would say that either imperialism or greed are the number one causes of war, these factors transcend religion.

I challenge you to explain how my views on war and the relationship it has with religion being one of simple pretext is somehow is proof that I am less educated, a poorer scientist or philosopher than you my friend. Are you vexed that I disagree with you? Do you feel the need to paint the world in black and white to make it easier to understand?

Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.

I never denounce science or claim to represent religion I only represent a neutral median, nor am I for any reason a War Monger as you describe me. I do feel that science has its limits and that religion has its value and that the two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a person who practices the scientific method to retain respect for and practice religious traditions of their ancestors.

I am humored that you view me as the personified representation of human religion though, its quite flattering.

Finally, I hate to tell this to you but when you try to paint the world with the brushes of sweeping generalization you end up missing the finer details.

I leave you to think on a quote from the Buddha though, as I am representing religion apparently:

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.

55381 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

Droodika wrote:


Zol_Grimm wrote:
Ok i concede my first point, and the second one, we seem to be in agreement about, however my third point you simply argue what i originally argued then attempt to insult me, i am simply stating that a scientist should never rule out anything til it can be proven with evidence, hence i neither disbelieve in god nor believe in him as it can be proven neither way that is all i was stating and that if you are a scientist you wont go far because not everything can be proven immediately e.g. Theory of evolution, which darwin worked very hard on and died before it's mass acceptance. I never pertain either way that you or the author of this post is right simply that discrediting one because it has no evidence is ironic as there is no evidence of god either. The point about it shaming previous scientists was simply to highlight my point about you being a poor scientist, if you can even be called that....

As for your response to my fourth point your the laughable one that text is word for word from wikipedia, you simply rearranged the sentences, and for reference the Heisenberg uncertainty principle refers mainly to particle physics (next time YOU should read more carefully) and i quote : "In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that CERTAIN PAIRS of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision." This principal only refers to one aspect and simply because that is the case now does not mean it will be the case in the future or that it refers to anything outside its original intent until it is proven otherwise. 200 years ago the idea of moving pictures, or open heart surgery was impossible, as was many other things we now perform every day thanks to science. Sorry my friend but yours is the narrow view of an uneducated person not mine and If science is such a farce to you, i invite you to relinquish everything it has given you, but that would leave you naked, bored, hungry and stupid. XD

You feign a higher understanding of science but you really only know a little and back it up with wikipedia...lol

Your last line shows how much you are up your own butt as i invited you to discuss it with me yet you retort like you are far more knowledgable than anyone here and sadly you prove yourself to be sufficient in naught but philosophy which while admirable you still lack the humility, openmindedness and calm of any great philiosopher. A true philisopher would have debated with me not said his points and shut me off accepting victory before counter arguements.

On a side note my message to the other religious dude, was not me abashing christianity it was simply me questioning it....and thanks to both your retorts, you prove my point, religion takes itself to seriously. I believe science can answer many if not all questions eventually but i still question it and can take the blows religion and other such things throw at it with humility and understanding, in fact when you prove us wrong it just makes me want to work harder to find the answer. Yet when anyone asks a question you can't answer or causes a blow to religion you all get uppity and go on a full offensive, while i agree with defending what you believe in attacking is not always the best method. What is religion so afraid of? That we'll prove you wrong? So far i believe we have proven you right.... Like i said about the story of moses, so perhaps he didn't part the red sea is it any less of a miracle if the plagues occured at that precise time and a tidal wave caused by one of the contributing factors saved them? I think not, plus the complexity of the universe and they way it develops really does suggest some guiding hand out there, but it hasn't been proven yet. I would also like to say the american states and other locations that do not teach the theory of evolution are another point of proof, in the U.K. we are taught both and left to make our own choices giving nothing but religious spiel just shows that religion is afraid science will prove it wrong. Furthermore as i have also said before religion is essentially a form of science, mankind fears what he does not understand, we feared rain, the rising and setting of the sun, thunder and lightning but religion quelled these fears by explaining them (god did it) or in some cases through sacrifices to appease gods etc(not christianity obviously). Finally just throwing it out there but religion is the number one cause of war as well, the crusades, and lest we forget witch hunts the mass killing of women with medical knowledge and all caused by the people of salem aparently eating wheat tainted with ergot(look it up on wiki drood) which caused them to hallucinate. I do also accept that religion has done many great things for society too but do the means justify the cause?.

Finally, i hate to tell this to you but it's generally religion that feels the need to pit itself against science, e.g. read Darwins story, Newtons story, and they are still at it today. Religion and science are brothers in my opinion 2 parallel types of explaining the universe, not enemies as war mongers such as yourself(as implied by your first post) like to imply.


I grow tired of arguing with you. You deride me for taking a minor passing personal shot at you, and then you proceed to make your entire post a personal attack.

Your response is riddled with grammatical errors, run on sentences and you seem to lack an understanding of when to form a new paragraph. Also using an ellipse sometimes makes sense but not when you use them what four times in one article... really?

Going off on a tangent about the evils of religion when that is not even the topic at hand after saying that I am not levelheaded or open minded is humorous though, I quite enjoyed this.

I could find another explanation of the Heisenberg principal for you from a university website if you like but wikipedia suffices and is only a target of ridicule for someone who has no actual valid arguments left. If you fail to see the point I was trying to make then I fear there is little I can do to help you.

Understanding that the bible is a series of stories intended to teach life lessons rather than a literal document, seems to be beyond the scope of your understanding. The stories of many cultures are like this, not exclusively the Judeo Cristian traditions. As for your rant on the American education system, I am not American I do not know of their practices and bringing them up is neither here nor there.

You make the assertion that Religion is the number one cause of war, how do you back this with facts? Do you back it with a generalized theory at least? No you seem to only cite a handful of examples of events that on the surface seem to be about religion but in reality have a root in naked avarice. I would say that either imperialism or greed are the number one causes of war, these factors transcend religion.

I challenge you to explain how my views on war and the relationship it has with religion being one of simple pretext is somehow is proof that I am less educated, a poorer scientist or philosopher than you my friend. Are you vexed that I disagree with you? Do you feel the need to paint the world in black and white to make it easier to understand?

Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.

I never denounce science or claim to represent religion I only represent a neutral median, nor am I for any reason a War Monger as you describe me. I do feel that science has its limits and that religion has its value and that the two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a person who practices the scientific method to retain respect for and practice religious traditions of their ancestors.

I am humored that you view me as the personified representation of human religion though, its quite flattering.

Finally, I hate to tell this to you but when you try to paint the world with the brushes of sweeping generalization you end up missing the finer details.

I leave you to think on a quote from the Buddha though, as I am representing religion apparently:

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.



If you considered my post a personal attack, i apologise, it wasn't meant as such, but your first reply's ending suggested the same of your post, so perhaps i did go a bit overboard.

I admit i am not the best at structuring sentences or paragraphs but provided i get my point across it's not really a nescessity although i do strive to improve my grammar etc and spelling errors happen man we are all human after all.

Your point about me going off at a tangent is also laughable as you have the same tendancy so we can hardly critise one another. I will however concede that i shouldn't have brought that up.

I do understand your point with the Heisenberg principal however it's irrelevant really as it does not really relate to the discussion but to say that by understanding one thing we learn less of another is true but also false as we constantly strive to learn more about everything around us every day. The principal while holding true to many things does not prove either way that science can't achieve greater heights only that you can quote topics i am defficient in knowledge of, but i'll research it a bit on scopus and such to better my knowledge.

I am aware that the bble holds many good life stories, there are however evidence of some actually occuring in history, just not quite as miraculous as in the bible. It sees beyond your scope to understand that the bible may hold more than just life stories even if only a few.

I never claimed religion is the number 1 cause of war but it is in at least the top 3. Again it was irrelevant and i retract that statement as well.

Thanks for your concern but your disagreement is not of my concern i just feel both sides should be argued fairly and cover all the necessary points. I do not need the world in black and white, and it will never be so, but as we can describe colours as well we can describe the complexities of nature too, although some aspects require much work. I never said that your understanding of war and religions relation ever made you a worst scientist or philosopher your lack of considering possibilities is.

Your point: "Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else." i understand it and i get it's context but it isn't really necessary it seems added just to try to add some profoundness, which is cool but i dunno it just seems outta place.

My warmonger point was unescessary i admit you got under my skin, i was just trying to say you have a tendancy to be overtly aggressive in your posting. I agree that science and religion can, and should, co-exist which i thought i made obvious. Both have value i just felt you seemed biased towards religion which is why i treated you as a person on religion's side of the arguement. I do not consider you the personification of religion, i feel that is better suited to people like the other guy i replied to who feels we should ask no questions and just accept everything as it is and will always be. I admit that enfuriates me because such thought is dangerous, especially in context to governments etc (i am a big fan of george orwell).

I am attempting to be impartial but we all have our bias, and i admit i am slightly biased against religion if you haven't already figured that one out. The surprising thing is, your version of debate does appear to be following the set rule that you are always right which, sadly can never be the case for anyone. Being impartial on any topic is impossible as we will always be biased towards one side thats why debates have more than one speaker. ;)

I do not attempt to generalise anything. I know many scientists who are devoted christians, the world isn't straight forward it never was and never will be. If the world could be generalised it would be a far more boring place XD. Plus science is all about the finer details, try looking at DNA samples all day -.- (i love it really.)
1220 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

Zol_Grimm wrote:


Droodika wrote:


Zol_Grimm wrote:
Ok i concede my first point, and the second one, we seem to be in agreement about, however my third point you simply argue what i originally argued then attempt to insult me, i am simply stating that a scientist should never rule out anything til it can be proven with evidence, hence i neither disbelieve in god nor believe in him as it can be proven neither way that is all i was stating and that if you are a scientist you wont go far because not everything can be proven immediately e.g. Theory of evolution, which darwin worked very hard on and died before it's mass acceptance. I never pertain either way that you or the author of this post is right simply that discrediting one because it has no evidence is ironic as there is no evidence of god either. The point about it shaming previous scientists was simply to highlight my point about you being a poor scientist, if you can even be called that....

As for your response to my fourth point your the laughable one that text is word for word from wikipedia, you simply rearranged the sentences, and for reference the Heisenberg uncertainty principle refers mainly to particle physics (next time YOU should read more carefully) and i quote : "In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that CERTAIN PAIRS of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision." This principal only refers to one aspect and simply because that is the case now does not mean it will be the case in the future or that it refers to anything outside its original intent until it is proven otherwise. 200 years ago the idea of moving pictures, or open heart surgery was impossible, as was many other things we now perform every day thanks to science. Sorry my friend but yours is the narrow view of an uneducated person not mine and If science is such a farce to you, i invite you to relinquish everything it has given you, but that would leave you naked, bored, hungry and stupid. XD

You feign a higher understanding of science but you really only know a little and back it up with wikipedia...lol

Your last line shows how much you are up your own butt as i invited you to discuss it with me yet you retort like you are far more knowledgable than anyone here and sadly you prove yourself to be sufficient in naught but philosophy which while admirable you still lack the humility, openmindedness and calm of any great philiosopher. A true philisopher would have debated with me not said his points and shut me off accepting victory before counter arguements.

On a side note my message to the other religious dude, was not me abashing christianity it was simply me questioning it....and thanks to both your retorts, you prove my point, religion takes itself to seriously. I believe science can answer many if not all questions eventually but i still question it and can take the blows religion and other such things throw at it with humility and understanding, in fact when you prove us wrong it just makes me want to work harder to find the answer. Yet when anyone asks a question you can't answer or causes a blow to religion you all get uppity and go on a full offensive, while i agree with defending what you believe in attacking is not always the best method. What is religion so afraid of? That we'll prove you wrong? So far i believe we have proven you right.... Like i said about the story of moses, so perhaps he didn't part the red sea is it any less of a miracle if the plagues occured at that precise time and a tidal wave caused by one of the contributing factors saved them? I think not, plus the complexity of the universe and they way it develops really does suggest some guiding hand out there, but it hasn't been proven yet. I would also like to say the american states and other locations that do not teach the theory of evolution are another point of proof, in the U.K. we are taught both and left to make our own choices giving nothing but religious spiel just shows that religion is afraid science will prove it wrong. Furthermore as i have also said before religion is essentially a form of science, mankind fears what he does not understand, we feared rain, the rising and setting of the sun, thunder and lightning but religion quelled these fears by explaining them (god did it) or in some cases through sacrifices to appease gods etc(not christianity obviously). Finally just throwing it out there but religion is the number one cause of war as well, the crusades, and lest we forget witch hunts the mass killing of women with medical knowledge and all caused by the people of salem aparently eating wheat tainted with ergot(look it up on wiki drood) which caused them to hallucinate. I do also accept that religion has done many great things for society too but do the means justify the cause?.

Finally, i hate to tell this to you but it's generally religion that feels the need to pit itself against science, e.g. read Darwins story, Newtons story, and they are still at it today. Religion and science are brothers in my opinion 2 parallel types of explaining the universe, not enemies as war mongers such as yourself(as implied by your first post) like to imply.


I grow tired of arguing with you. You deride me for taking a minor passing personal shot at you, and then you proceed to make your entire post a personal attack.

Your response is riddled with grammatical errors, run on sentences and you seem to lack an understanding of when to form a new paragraph. Also using an ellipse sometimes makes sense but not when you use them what four times in one article... really?

Going off on a tangent about the evils of religion when that is not even the topic at hand after saying that I am not levelheaded or open minded is humorous though, I quite enjoyed this.

I could find another explanation of the Heisenberg principal for you from a university website if you like but wikipedia suffices and is only a target of ridicule for someone who has no actual valid arguments left. If you fail to see the point I was trying to make then I fear there is little I can do to help you.

Understanding that the bible is a series of stories intended to teach life lessons rather than a literal document, seems to be beyond the scope of your understanding. The stories of many cultures are like this, not exclusively the Judeo Cristian traditions. As for your rant on the American education system, I am not American I do not know of their practices and bringing them up is neither here nor there.

You make the assertion that Religion is the number one cause of war, how do you back this with facts? Do you back it with a generalized theory at least? No you seem to only cite a handful of examples of events that on the surface seem to be about religion but in reality have a root in naked avarice. I would say that either imperialism or greed are the number one causes of war, these factors transcend religion.

I challenge you to explain how my views on war and the relationship it has with religion being one of simple pretext is somehow is proof that I am less educated, a poorer scientist or philosopher than you my friend. Are you vexed that I disagree with you? Do you feel the need to paint the world in black and white to make it easier to understand?

Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.

I never denounce science or claim to represent religion I only represent a neutral median, nor am I for any reason a War Monger as you describe me. I do feel that science has its limits and that religion has its value and that the two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a person who practices the scientific method to retain respect for and practice religious traditions of their ancestors.

I am humored that you view me as the personified representation of human religion though, its quite flattering.

Finally, I hate to tell this to you but when you try to paint the world with the brushes of sweeping generalization you end up missing the finer details.

I leave you to think on a quote from the Buddha though, as I am representing religion apparently:

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.



If you considered my post a personal attack, i apologise, it wasn't meant as such, but your first reply's ending suggested the same of your post, so perhaps i did go a bit overboard.

I admit i am not the best at structuring sentences or paragraphs but provided i get my point across it's not really a nescessity although i do strive to improve my grammar etc and spelling errors happen man we are all human after all.

Your point about me going off at a tangent is also laughable as you have the same tendancy so we can hardly critise one another. I will however concede that i shouldn't have brought that up.

I do understand your point with the Heisenberg principal however it's irrelevant really as it does not really relate to the discussion but to say that by understanding one thing we learn less of another is true but also false as we constantly strive to learn more about everything around us every day. The principal while holding true to many things does not prove either way that science can't achieve greater heights only that you can quote topics i am defficient in knowledge of, but i'll research it a bit on scopus and such to better my knowledge.

I am aware that the bble holds many good life stories, there are however evidence of some actually occuring in history, just not quite as miraculous as in the bible. It sees beyond your scope to understand that the bible may hold more than just life stories even if only a few.

I never claimed religion is the number 1 cause of war but it is in at least the top 3. Again it was irrelevant and i retract that statement as well.

Thanks for your concern but your disagreement is not of my concern i just feel both sides should be argued fairly and cover all the necessary points. I do not need the world in black and white, and it will never be so, but as we can describe colours as well we can describe the complexities of nature too, although some aspects require much work. I never said that your understanding of war and religions relation ever made you a worst scientist or philosopher your lack of considering possibilities is.

Your point: "Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else." i understand it and i get it's context but it isn't really necessary it seems added just to try to add some profoundness, which is cool but i dunno it just seems outta place.

My warmonger point was unescessary i admit you got under my skin, i was just trying to say you have a tendancy to be overtly aggressive in your posting. I agree that science and religion can, and should, co-exist which i thought i made obvious. Both have value i just felt you seemed biased towards religion which is why i treated you as a person on religion's side of the arguement. I do not consider you the personification of religion, i feel that is better suited to people like the other guy i replied to who feels we should ask no questions and just accept everything as it is and will always be. I admit that enfuriates me because such thought is dangerous, especially in context to governments etc (i am a big fan of george orwell).

I am attempting to be impartial but we all have our bias, and i admit i am slightly biased against religion if you haven't already figured that one out. The surprising thing is, your version of debate does appear to be following the set rule that you are always right which, sadly can never be the case for anyone. Being impartial on any topic is impossible as we will always be biased towards one side thats why debates have more than one speaker. ;)

I do not attempt to generalise anything. I know many scientists who are devoted christians, the world isn't straight forward it never was and never will be. If the world could be generalised it would be a far more boring place XD. Plus science is all about the finer details, try looking at DNA samples all day -.- (i love it really.)


If your some kind of lab technician then I really hope there IS a God as your customers are certainly in dire need of his intervention.
Just kidding really...

You are simply however talking in circles now; blatantly lying about things that I have you quoted as saying and changing your mind. I think that this debate is over.
55381 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 6/3/09 , edited 6/4/09
I haven't knowingly lied but feel free to point out where i did and i will apologise, because if i did it was unintentional.
324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / New York
Offline
Posted 6/4/09
I know things that no one would believe... and if I tried to show you, ther eis chance you won't see.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.